- Browse by Author
Browsing by Author "Besser, Rachel E. J."
Now showing 1 - 5 of 5
Results Per Page
Sort Options
Item Cambridge hybrid closed-loop algorithm in children and adolescents with type 1 diabetes: a multicentre 6-month randomised controlled trial.(Elsevier, 2022-04) Ware, Julia; Boughton, Charlotte K.; Allen, Janet M.; Wilinska, Malgorzata E.; Tauschmann, Martin; Denvir, Louise; Thankamony, Ajay; Campbell, Fiona M.; Wadwa, R. Paul; Buckingham, Bruce A.; Davis, Nikki; DiMeglio, Linda A.; Mauras, Nelly; Besser, Rachel E. J.; Ghatak, Atrayee; Weinzimer, Stuart A.; Hood, Korey K.; Fox, D. Steven; Kanapka, Lauren; Kollman, Craig; Sibayan, Judy; Beck, Roy W.; Hovorka, Roman; Pediatrics, School of MedicineBackground Closed-loop insulin delivery systems have the potential to address suboptimal glucose control in children and adolescents with type 1 diabetes. We compared safety and efficacy of the Cambridge hybrid closed-loop algorithm with usual care over 6 months in this population. Methods In a multicentre, multinational, parallel randomised controlled trial, participants aged 6–18 years using insulin pump therapy were recruited at seven UK and five US paediatric diabetes centres. Key inclusion criteria were diagnosis of type 1 diabetes for at least 12 months, insulin pump therapy for at least 3 months, and screening HbA1c levels between 53 and 86 mmol/mol (7·0–10·0%). Using block randomisation and central randomisation software, we randomly assigned participants to either closed-loop insulin delivery (closed-loop group) or to usual care with insulin pump therapy (control group) for 6 months. Randomisation was stratified at each centre by local baseline HbA1c. The Cambridge closed-loop algorithm running on a smartphone was used with either (1) a modified Medtronic 640G pump, Medtronic Guardian 3 sensor, and Medtronic prototype phone enclosure (FlorenceM configuration), or (2) a Sooil Dana RS pump and Dexcom G6 sensor (CamAPS FX configuration). The primary endpoint was change in HbA1c at 6 months combining data from both configurations. The primary analysis was done in all randomised patients (intention to treat). Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02925299. Findings Of 147 people initially screened, 133 participants (mean age 13·0 years [SD 2·8]; 57% female, 43% male) were randomly assigned to either the closed-loop group (n=65) or the control group (n=68). Mean baseline HbA1c was 8·2% (SD 0·7) in the closed-loop group and 8·3% (0·7) in the control group. At 6 months, HbA1c was lower in the closed-loop group than in the control group (between-group difference −3·5 mmol/mol (95% CI −6·5 to −0·5 [–0·32 percentage points, −0·59 to −0·04]; p=0·023). Closed-loop usage was low with FlorenceM due to failing phone enclosures (median 40% [IQR 26–53]), but consistently high with CamAPS FX (93% [88–96]), impacting efficacy. A total of 155 adverse events occurred after randomisation (67 in the closed-loop group, 88 in the control group), including seven severe hypoglycaemia events (four in the closed-loop group, three in the control group), two diabetic ketoacidosis events (both in the closed-loop group), and two non-treatment-related serious adverse events. There were 23 reportable hyperglycaemia events (11 in the closed-loop group, 12 in the control group), which did not meet criteria for diabetic ketoacidosis. Interpretation The Cambridge hybrid closed-loop algorithm had an acceptable safety profile, and improved glycaemic control in children and adolescents with type 1 diabetes. To ensure optimal efficacy of the closed-loop system, usage needs to be consistently high, as demonstrated with CamAPS FX.Item Consensus guidance for monitoring individuals with islet autoantibody-positive pre-stage 3 type 1 diabetes(Springer, 2024-09) Phillip, Moshe; Achenbach, Peter; Addala, Ananta; Albanese-O'Neill, Anastasia; Battelino, Tadej; Bell, Kirstine J.; Besser, Rachel E. J.; Bonifacio, Ezio; Colhoun, Helen M.; Couper, Jennifer J.; Craig, Maria E.; Danne, Thomas; de Beaufort, Carine; Dovc, Klemen; Driscoll, Kimberly A.; Dutta, Sanjoy; Ebekozien, Osagie; Elding Larsson, Helena; Feiten, Daniel J.; Frohnert, Brigitte I.; Gabbay, Robert A.; Gallagher, Mary P.; Greenbaum, Carla J.; Griffin, Kurt J.; Hagopian, William; Haller, Michael J.; Hendrieckx, Christel; Hendriks, Emile; Holt, Richard I. G.; Hughes, Lucille; Ismail, Heba M.; Jacobsen, Laura M.; Johnson, Suzanne B.; Kolb, Leslie E.; Kordonouri, Olga; Lange, Karin; Lash, Robert W.; Lernmark, Åke; Libman, Ingrid; Lundgren, Markus; Maahs, David M.; Marcovecchio, M. Loredana; Mathieu, Chantal; Miller, Kellee M.; O'Donnell, Holly K.; Oron, Tal; Patil, Shivajirao P.; Pop-Busui, Rodica; Rewers, Marian J.; Rich, Stephen S.; Schatz, Desmond A.; Schulman-Rosenbaum, Rifka; Simmons, Kimber M.; Sims, Emily K.; Skyler, Jay S.; Smith, Laura B.; Speake, Cate; Steck, Andrea K.; Thomas, Nicholas P. B.; Tonyushkina, Ksenia N.; Veijola, Riitta; Wentworth, John M.; Wherrett, Diane K.; Wood, Jamie R.; Ziegler, Anette-Gabriele; DiMeglio, Linda A.; Pediatrics, School of MedicineGiven the proven benefits of screening to reduce diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA) likelihood at the time of stage 3 type 1 diabetes diagnosis, and emerging availability of therapy to delay disease progression, type 1 diabetes screening programmes are being increasingly emphasised. Once broadly implemented, screening initiatives will identify significant numbers of islet autoantibody-positive (IAb+) children and adults who are at risk of (confirmed single IAb+) or living with (multiple IAb+) early-stage (stage 1 and stage 2) type 1 diabetes. These individuals will need monitoring for disease progression; much of this care will happen in non-specialised settings. To inform this monitoring, JDRF in conjunction with international experts and societies developed consensus guidance. Broad advice from this guidance includes the following: (1) partnerships should be fostered between endocrinologists and primary-care providers to care for people who are IAb+; (2) when people who are IAb+ are initially identified there is a need for confirmation using a second sample; (3) single IAb+ individuals are at lower risk of progression than multiple IAb+ individuals; (4) individuals with early-stage type 1 diabetes should have periodic medical monitoring, including regular assessments of glucose levels, regular education about symptoms of diabetes and DKA, and psychosocial support; (5) interested people with stage 2 type 1 diabetes should be offered trial participation or approved therapies; and (6) all health professionals involved in monitoring and care of individuals with type 1 diabetes have a responsibility to provide education. The guidance also emphasises significant unmet needs for further research on early-stage type 1 diabetes to increase the rigour of future recommendations and inform clinical care.Item Correction to: Consensus guidance for monitoring individuals with islet autoantibody‑positive pre‑stage 3 type 1 diabetes(Springer, 2024) Phillip, Moshe; Achenbach, Peter; Addala, Ananta; Albanese-O'Neill, Anastasia; Battelino, Tadej; Bell, Kirstine J.; Besser, Rachel E. J.; Bonifacio, Ezio; Colhoun, Helen M.; Couper, Jennifer J.; Craig, Maria E.; Danne, Thomas; de Beaufort, Carine; Dovc, Klemen; Driscoll, Kimberly A.; Dutta, Sanjoy; Ebekozien, Osagie; Elding Larsson, Helena; Feiten, Daniel J.; Frohnert, Brigitte I.; Gabbay, Robert A.; Gallagher, Mary P.; Greenbaum, Carla J.; Griffin, Kurt J.; Hagopian, William; Haller, Michael J.; Hendrieckx, Christel; Hendriks, Emile; Holt, Richard I. G.; Hughes, Lucille; Ismail, Heba M.; Jacobsen, Laura M.; Johnson, Suzanne B.; Kolb, Leslie E.; Kordonouri, Olga; Lange, Karin; Lash, Robert W.; Lernmark, Åke; Libman, Ingrid; Lundgren, Markus; Maahs, David M.; Marcovecchio, M. Loredana; Mathieu, Chantal; Miller, Kellee M.; O'Donnell, Holly K.; Oron, Tal; Patil, Shivajirao P.; Pop-Busui, Rodica; Rewers, Marian J.; Rich, Stephen S.; Schatz, Desmond A.; Schulman-Rosenbaum, Rifka; Simmons, Kimber M.; Sims, Emily K.; Skyler, Jay S.; Smith, Laura B.; Speake, Cate; Steck, Andrea K.; Thomas, Nicholas P. B.; Tonyushkina, Ksenia N.; Veijola, Riitta; Wentworth, John M.; Wherrett, Diane K.; Wood, Jamie R.; Ziegler, Anette-Gabriele; DiMeglio, Linda A.; Pediatrics, School of MedicineItem Lived experience of CamAPS FX closed loop system in youth with type 1 diabetes and their parents(Wiley, 2022) Hood, Korey K.; Garcia-Willingham, Natasha; Hanes, Sarah; Tanenbaum, Molly L.; Ware, Julia; Boughton, Charlotte K.; Allen, Janet M.; Wilinska, Malgorzata E.; Tauschmann, Martin; Denvir, Louise; Thankamony, Ajay; Campbell, Fiona; Wadwa, R. Paul; Buckingham, Bruce A.; Davis, Nikki; DiMeglio, Linda A.; Mauras, Nelly; Besser, Rachel E. J.; Ghatak, Atrayee; Weinzimer, Stuart A.; Fox, D. Steven; Kanapka, Lauren; Kollman, Craig; Sibayan, Judy; Beck, Roy W.; Hovorka, Roman; DAN05 ConsortiumAim: To examine changes in the lived experience of type 1 diabetes after use of hybrid closed loop (CL), including the CamAPS FX CL system. Materials and methods: The primary study was conducted as an open-label, single-period, randomized, parallel design contrasting CL versus insulin pump (with or without continuous glucose monitoring). Participants were asked to complete patient-reported outcomes before starting CL and 3 and 6 months later. Surveys assessed diabetes distress, hypoglycaemia concerns and quality of life. Qualitative focus group data were collected at the completion of the study. Results: In this sample of 98 youth (age range 6-18, mean age 12.7 ± 2.8 years) and their parents, CL use was not associated with psychosocial benefits overall. However, the subgroup (n = 12) using the CamAPS FX system showed modest improvements in quality of life and parent distress, reinforced by both survey (p < .05) and focus group responses. There were no negative effects of CL use reported by study participants. Conclusions: Closed loop use via the CamAPS FX system was associated with modest improvements in aspects of the lived experience of managing type 1 diabetes in youth and their families. Further refinements of the system may optimize the user experience.Item Screening for Type 1 Diabetes in the General Population: A Status Report and Perspective(American Diabetes Association, 2022) Sims, Emily K.; Besser, Rachel E. J.; Dayan, Colin; Rasmussen, Cristy Geno; Greenbaum, Carla; Griffin, Kurt J.; Hagopian, William; Knip, Mikael; Long, Anna E.; Martin, Frank; Mathieu, Chantal; Rewers, Marian; Steck, Andrea K.; Wentworth, John M.; Rich, Stephen S.; Kordonouri, Olga; Ziegler, Anette-Gabriele; Herold, Kevan C.; NIDDK Type 1 Diabetes TrialNet Study Group; Pediatrics, School of MedicineMost screening programs to identify individuals at risk for type 1 diabetes have targeted relatives of people living with the disease to improve yield and feasibility. However, ∼90% of those who develop type 1 diabetes do not have a family history. Recent successes in disease-modifying therapies to impact the course of early-stage disease have ignited the consideration of the need for and feasibility of population screening to identify those at increased risk. Existing population screening programs rely on genetic or autoantibody screening, and these have yielded significant information about disease progression and approaches for timing for screening in clinical practice. At the March 2021 Type 1 Diabetes TrialNet Steering Committee meeting, a session was held in which ongoing efforts for screening in the general population were discussed. This report reviews the background of these efforts and the details of those programs. Additionally, we present hurdles that need to be addressed for successful implementation of population screening and provide initial recommendations for individuals with positive screens so that standardized guidelines for monitoring and follow-up can be established.